Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 26th Oct 2007 18:46 UTC, submitted by luna6
Mac OS X "OS X 10.5 Leopard is the best operating system released by Apple so far and runs neck and neck with Ubuntu's Gutsy Gibbon as my favorite operating systems to use. In the past I wanted to get an iMac, but not because of OS X but rather because of their sleek hardware. Now after using Leopard, I want to buy an iMac to run Leopard. Nice job Apple." More here.
Order by: Score:
Credibility
by _LH_ on Fri 26th Oct 2007 18:52 UTC
_LH_
Member since:
2005-07-20

How can anybody claim that they can write a thorough review of an operating system in less than a day. In that kind of time frame, what you can write is an introduction to OS and write some first impressions but you can't judge day-to-day usage in a few hours.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Credibility
by Eugenia on Fri 26th Oct 2007 18:58 UTC in reply to "Credibility"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

You can't wait for a review for a month. It's just not practical. If you do so, just ask on forums in a month's time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Credibility
by Kroc on Fri 26th Oct 2007 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Credibility"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You mean it's not worthwhile doing a review for a month, when you need the Ad Revenue now whilst the hype is good.

A month long review is very practical. It'd take at least that long to adjust to the Mac platform as a new user if you were using it every day with intent.

Reply Score: 15

RE[2]: Credibility
by netpython on Fri 26th Oct 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Credibility"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Yep. Besides the large guided tour gives a quick impression about OSX.http://www.apple.com/macosx/guidedtour/
Not bad at all, i like the graphics a lot. Time machine is impressive.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Credibility
by MacTO on Sat 27th Oct 2007 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Credibility"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

I know a guy who won't trust a review unless the person has had the product for at least three months, and preferably a year. The reason is simple: a lot of people are in this "new toy" mentality when they have only had the product for a few hours/days/weeks. But what happens a few weeks down the line:

* Are they still backing up with Time Machine?
* Did you turn off Cover Flow because it uses too much screen space?
* Were you lynched for using templates in Mail?
* Are you only using one Space regularly?
* Did you revert to Firefox because Safari's new features didn't make up for the lack of extensions?

I mean, if I picked up the new cat, I would be using all of those things (except templates in Mail) for the first few days. But after that, probably not. Heck, I have only used Expose a handful of times after those first few weeks with 10.3.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Credibility
by Kroc on Sat 27th Oct 2007 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Why would you not be backing up with Tiger when you don't need to actually do anything to keep it working, bar have the external disk plugged in; and that's hardly a chore ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Credibility
by mind!dagger on Sun 28th Oct 2007 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

I am one of those systems administrators who waits for a period of time. There is the initial `wow` factor, sorry Microsoft, you did not come up with this phrase first, and the time for the system to mature across various deployments.

I am waiting to purchase a Leopard server disk.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Credibility
by JonathanBThompson on Fri 26th Oct 2007 18:59 UTC in reply to "Credibility"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

I'd have to agree, this was more a quick run-through of user-visible things than a complete review.

But, it's much easier to spit out a "review" like this when you clearly don't even use a spellchecker: read the first paragraph carefully, and you'll see blatant evidence of that ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Credibility
by Erunno on Fri 26th Oct 2007 18:59 UTC in reply to "Credibility"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

Ars Technica will probably write the only review worth waiting for. Their review of Tiger was excellent and offered interesting technical insights into the inner workings of Mac OS X and its history contrary to superficial stuff like this blog entry.

Reply Score: 16

RE[2]: Credibility
by binarycrusader on Sat 27th Oct 2007 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Credibility"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Ars Technica will probably write the only review worth waiting for. Their review of Tiger was excellent and offered interesting technical insights into the inner workings of Mac OS X and its history contrary to superficial stuff like this blog entry.


While theirs will certainly be valuable, and without trying to sound like a "kiss-up", I'm certainly looking forward to comments on it from OSNews staff. Between arsTechnica's review + your viewpoints, I always feel like I have a better overall picture.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Credibility
by Darkelve on Sat 27th Oct 2007 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Credibility"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Apple Insider often post good articles too, despite them being an 'Apple website'.

I noticed they posted a mini-review here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/26/an_introductory_mac_o...

That said, I too enjoy most of ArsTechnica's reviews.

And this linked-to review was a nice read too. Sure it is a little enthusiastic, but I was enthusiastic when OpenSUSE 10.3 came out as well; it has kind of grown on me.

I wish I had a Mac machine so I could compare windows/linux/osx , since operating systems interest me very much ;)

Edited 2007-10-27 19:05

Reply Score: 2

RE: Credibility
by TaterSalad on Fri 26th Oct 2007 19:21 UTC in reply to "Credibility"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed. If you want to see a real review of leopard then give a Mac to someone like me who has never used one and I'll give you a review in 2 - 4 weeks time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Credibility
by Kroc on Fri 26th Oct 2007 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Credibility"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Sounds like a novel 419 to me ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Credibility
by Eugenia on Fri 26th Oct 2007 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Credibility"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

The thing that none of you understands and only sees from the reader's point of view instead of our point of view, is that there is a time critical aspect to journalism. Most readers want information NOW and journalists must give it to them NOW. If they wait 1 month, then no one will care to read their site by that time. And then they can't even sustain that web site.

But noooo, you all have to go scrutinize everything and only see things from your own side.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Credibility
by Kroc on Fri 26th Oct 2007 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Technical readers, yes. But regular folk probably have no idea Leopard has come out. They might discover that if they read the technology columns in the papers, or should they walk into an Apple store - but it really isn't imperative that my mum know that Leopard has just come out. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Credibility
by Adurbe on Fri 26th Oct 2007 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Credibility"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

a large number of 'normal people' DO know its out!

For example it is currently on the BBC news home-page (and every other uk based news I have read today)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Credibility
by Adurbe on Fri 26th Oct 2007 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I read this 'review' as did everyone else who has posted (one hopes!)

Why did we read it? Because we are like excited little school-kids! There is a new toy out and we want to know if its worth the money

We read it despite knowing it only had one day of use, as such couldn't be of the technical depth OSNEWS readers would like. Hoping against hope that they have spotted some interesting detail other 24 hour reviewers have missed!

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Credibility
by Beta on Fri 26th Oct 2007 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Reviewing software isn’t journalism, it’s advertising.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Credibility
by HappyGod on Sun 28th Oct 2007 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Credibility"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

I couldn't disagree with you more here.

I have never owned a Mac, but I'm seriously considering it, and I basically read every Mac related review out there.

Frankly I couldn't care less if he's been using it for 20 minutes, if there's a chance I'll learn something new about the OS, it's worth a read.

Anyway, so a review like this won't tell you about important things like reliability, but I know that when I first loaded up Vista, I hated it. A few months later: I still hate it. That information might have been helpful to someone about to fork out $400+.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Credibility
by whartung on Fri 26th Oct 2007 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
whartung Member since:
2005-07-06

However, I think it's fair to ask the editorial board to read the reviews and share them with us if they're particularly novel or give a unique perspective over and above what we have already seen.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Credibility
by TaterSalad on Fri 26th Oct 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

I was just being unbiased. I haven't used or owned a Mac. It'd be quite interesting reading it from a newbie mac perspective.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Credibility
by ssa2204 on Fri 26th Oct 2007 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Incredible, so if the reviewer waits a month to give, then people will just whine and cry that Leopard is just being ignored.

These reviews should be just taken with a grain of salt. Do you really need the review to tell you how to think? At best most of these reviews just provide information on new features and how they worked for them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Credibility
by MysterMask on Fri 26th Oct 2007 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

I beg to differ. Readers expectation in journalists are actually much higher than the value of the usual 'first day review' (in most cases a recap of the marketing material found on the vendor's site).

However most journalist only deliver such reviews. Even if they got big amounts of page hits due to the "novelty-factor", their long-term impact is very limited - their "reviews" are forgotten soon and are hence irrelevant.

Journalist that don't just go for one day value "hype themes" but deliver real value to the reader will not be forgotten and can grow an audience. Best example: John Siracusas and his former Mac OS X reviews (e. g. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10-4.ars) which are famous for being thorough and insightful. They never appeared the same day a new MacOS appeared but they are still remembered whereas a "review" such as the one linked will be forgotten tomorrow.

Which one would you prefer?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Credibility
by thebluesgnr on Sat 27th Oct 2007 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Credibility"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Which one would you prefer?

Why not both? They serve totally different purposes.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Credibility
by Robert Escue on Sat 27th Oct 2007 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

Timeliness is important, but I also think that timeliness is more often than not abused by many journalists (and I understand this because I worked with journalists prior to getting into IT), where it is more important to "get the story first" than it is to print something worth reading.

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, but I would much rather wait 30 to 60 days and read what someone who has taken the time to actually use the OS/hardware/software and evaluate its features rather than write a piece that is nothing more than a blog entry or an extension of the "new features" sheet from the marketing department. The story will have value, it just won't have the immediacy that journalists and advertisers want, and I think in many cases that immediacy is overhyped.

How many stories have we read on this site (amongst others) that are light on the facts, obscure relevant details, or just ignore the truth just to get something "out the door", and later when the facts or the other side of the story comes out, the original story usually turns out to be a waste of time to read. Just as journalists are expected to report information in a timely fashion, it is also part of their responsibility to weigh the pros and cons of each piece they intend to publish. Not everything needs to be published immediately. Some of the material I read (long term studies and various research articles) take months or years to write, I think waiting 30 days for an OS or application review is reasonable.

If I ran a site like OSNews I would much rather be characterized as being "late out of the gate" but having insightful, serious content worthy of the limited time many people have to read than to be like everybody else and publish anything that comes across the desk because it meets the time frame and an expected interest level. I am sure that advertisers and some of the readers might not like waiting, but if the end result is worth the wait why not? I really don't think most of the readers would mind that much.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Credibility
by Googol on Sat 27th Oct 2007 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Credibility"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

Err.. the point being that you do not have any information after one day. Maybe one month is also a bit of an exaggeration. Tempering with it for a week would have allowed you to have a better look at it than just boot it up and take a screen shot, merely for the sake of being first. Also, "journalists" get preview samples while bloggers don't. Those who do can be first with a proper review on day one, I've seen it happening. However, I don't know whether Apple graced any writers with a preview sample in this case. We are interested in the the meat, not the head-line alone.

You could have called it anything you wanted but it says "review". It is a first look at 10.5, a day's look. This is not the most terrible thing, but if you dilute your news items like that, I might not click your real reviews anymore if I don't expect there to be any. That is also not so good for your advertisers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Credibility
by walterbyrd on Sat 27th Oct 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "Credibility"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>How can anybody claim that they can write a thorough review of an operating system in less than a day<<

People were reviewing Vista about two years before it was finally released.

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/26/leopardreview

though it does contain the extraordinary remark:

Another small enhancement I find delightful - being an internet vagabond, hopping from one wireless network to another - is that Leopard's Wi-Fi network menu now shows you which networks in your range are secured and which are open.

Seems like a feature Debian/Gnome has had for...well, quite a while!

Edited 2007-10-26 19:09

Reply Score: 6

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It's been an oversight. Apple do it quite often with various things. Another "duh" thing in Leopard that should have been there in 10.1 is being able to drag things onto minimised windows. In open source you fix things like this yourself, on Mac OS X people write apps to fix these shortcomings. No doubt several "dock-fixing" apps will now appear out of the ether.

Reply Score: 3

Some more insteresting stuff
by Tyr. on Fri 26th Oct 2007 19:18 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

No more classic on Leopard : http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303137

And lots of security improvements : http://db.tidbits.com/article/9251

Reply Score: 3

RE: Some more insteresting stuff
by Machster on Fri 26th Oct 2007 22:19 UTC in reply to "Some more insteresting stuff"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Oooops!!! No Classic in Leopard? Looks like I won't be upgrading after-all. What a shame.

Reply Score: 1

CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

Oooops!!! No Classic in Leopard? Looks like I won't be upgrading after-all. What a shame.


Like it's really that big of a deal? That's like saying

"What? I can't run my Windows 95/98 apps in Vista!?!? Then screw Vista!"

Sure, maybe a few people still need to use 95/98, but that's a fairly niche market now and no reason to swear off Vista (granted there are plenty other reasons, but that's beside the point). Same deal with Mac Classic. That shouldn't be the axe to Leopard.

Reply Score: 1

mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

I remember a die-hard 3.11 user who refused to upgrade to 95 for the same reasons. Amazing how some people think.

I like my OS X and Linux. This forward progression of software is the nature of the game.

Reply Score: 2

Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Forward does not necessarily equate to better.

Reply Score: 1

Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Furthermore, a jump from 3.xx to Windows 95 in the early days of MS offerings was quite a different matter than a baby step from Tiger to Leopard.

Reply Score: 1

Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Like it's really that big of a deal? That's like saying

"What? I can't run my Windows 95/98 apps in Vista!?!? Then screw Vista!"


It is a big deal because of the way Apple has chosen to handle backwards compatibility. Unlike Windows they've really seperated it all out of the base system while keeping it all really functional and now they can cut it right out. I think really this should go in to the history books on how backwards compatibility should be handled.

Reply Score: 3

_mikk Member since:
2005-10-19

That is if you don't take z/OS (MVS) into consideration. Anybody who is talking about backwards compatibility should take a very close look at IBM.

Reply Score: 1

Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Your answer has a hostile tone and your analogy irrelevant, therefore, I won't waist my time responding.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Some more insteresting stuff
by kaiwai on Sat 27th Oct 2007 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Some more insteresting stuff"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Oooops!!! No Classic in Leopard? Looks like I won't be upgrading after-all. What a shame.


I don't want to sound rude but what the hell are you running which requires Classic? its 2007 mate, get with the programme. Time to move forward, onward and upwards.

Reply Score: 3

Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Your question is not rude at all. I enjoy working with older apps to name a few: Acta, More, Clockwork, WordPerfect, my Epson printer, FullWrite, Loki, Netscape 4.8 (for sentimental reasons and boy is it fast) and Outlook Express (prefer it to Mail). Remember, just because an OS is newer does not mean it is better [in all areas]. Heck, I still use a 22" Diamond Pro CRT monitor because it is vastly superior to newer LCDs.

Edited 2007-10-29 00:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Your question is not rude at all. I enjoy working with older apps to name a few: Acta, More, Clockwork, WordPerfect, my Epson printer, FullWrite, Loki, Netscape 4.8 (for sentimental reasons and boy is it fast) and Outlook Express (prefer it to Mail). Remember, just because an OS is newer does not mean it is better [in all areas]. Heck, I still use a 22" Diamond Pro CRT monitor because it is vastly superior to newer LCDs.


THe reason I thought it might have sounded rude was the abrupt nature in which I asked the question.

I can understand about CRT vs. LCD; the issue of washed out colour still exists in LCD. The move to LCD's in the main wasn't the result of 'better technology' but because it made computers more ascetically pleasing. IIRC there was actually a company, I think it was Samsung, who put out a CRT but it was significantly slimmer than a standard CRT, almost that of LCD.

As for the rest, time to move on; there are replacements out there. Pages is a great alternative to Word, but then again, Office 2008 might prove my 'Microsoft scepticism' wrong. The issues you're having sound more like personal preference rather than hardcore reliance on something because there are no alternatives in that given area.

Reply Score: 2

Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

As for the rest, time to move on; there are replacements out there. Pages is a great alternative to Word, but then again, Office 2008 might prove my 'Microsoft scepticism' wrong. The issues you're having sound more like personal preference rather than hardcore reliance on something because there are no alternatives in that given area.


I can't agree with your "Time to move on" philosophy. If something works for me in Tiger and Leopard takes that away while adding virtually nothing then why "move on. " I don't see any compelling reason to downgrade to Leopard. As for Pages, I tried it during the trial it was OK but why spend $$ when what I have already works. As for MS Office, I will never buy it as I loathe it and NeoOffice renders it irrelevant.

Edited 2007-10-29 03:00

Reply Score: 0

Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Edit Duplicate post

Edited 2007-10-29 02:56

Reply Score: 1

tertiary_adjunct Member since:
2006-01-15

"Oooops!!! No Classic in Leopard? Looks like I won't be upgrading after-all. What a shame."

You could set your Mac up to dual boot in order to run classic.

What are you running that requires Classic anyway?

Reply Score: 1

MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

I cannot speak for the original poster, but I know that my mother won't be getting the new release because no Classic means no WordPerfect and no HyperCard.

Reply Score: 1

Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

Yes, that's true but dual booting is such a hassle. And it is not like its easy going back between apps. I think that I would get a separate machine to handle OS 9 before I did that.

Edited 2007-10-29 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Some more insteresting stuff
by emokid156 on Sat 27th Oct 2007 11:01 UTC in reply to "Some more insteresting stuff"
emokid156 Member since:
2006-04-19

In reply to the fact that Leopard has dropped support for Classic mode:

Thanks for pointing this out.

Most people never touch Classic, but I do use it to play some old Mac games that simply won't run in OS X. I know, Sim Tower is a terrible game, but it's addictive.

I also have a copy of the Sims that is OS 9 only.

Edited 2007-10-27 11:08

Reply Score: 2

Quite informative
by Doc Pain on Fri 26th Oct 2007 19:29 UTC
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

In my opinion, the review gave a good overview about visible features and those that may be new to Mac OS X 10.4 users. The review does not touch much of the OS features, you can see this from the chapter headings. It's very short sighted (read: it does not concern long time aspects).

Regarding the cons the author mentioned:

The default wallpaper is fugly.

And changing the wallpaper is a lot of hard work, I know, you have to re-wire the bytes in memory by hand. :-) To get serious again, I cannot imagine that a default wallpaper does say anything about an OS's quality. And just because the author does not like it, it does not have any impact on this great OS. Changing wallpapers and default colours are things many users do first after install...

Live preview with “Spaces” on the dock would have been nice.

Money floating out of the DVD drive would have been nice, too, but you can't have everything. :-)

iPhoto is not included.

Has it been included in prior MAC OS X versions, or did Apple announce iPhoto to be included with Leopard?

Regarding a pro:

“Time Machine” makes data back-ups fun (whooaa).

I really like this feature. I hope Leopard users will dp, too. This is when standard system administration and maintenance tasks perform entertainment purposes. :-)

Reply Score: 5

Quick Look? Wasn't that in Windows 95?
by pxa270 on Fri 26th Oct 2007 20:11 UTC
pxa270
Member since:
2006-01-08

Quickly opening a preview of your app in the file manager without opening the associated application? That sounds a lot like Quick View, a somewhat half baked feature in Windows 95/98 which was later abandoned like Microsoft. Let's hope the OS X implementation fares better.

Edited 2007-10-26 20:12

Reply Score: 1

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Quickly opening a preview of your app in the file manager without opening the associated application? That sounds a lot like Quick View, a somewhat half baked feature in Windows 95/98 which was later abandoned like Microsoft. Let's hope the OS X implementation fares better.


Not so different to the document previews that appeared in NeXTSTEP's inspector panel...

Reply Score: 3

Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Quickly opening a preview of your app in the file manager without opening the associated application? That sounds a lot like Quick View, a somewhat half baked feature in Windows 95/98 which was later abandoned like Microsoft. Let's hope the OS X implementation fares better.


Like a lot of OSX features its not original, but the first time it's been implemented in a good user-friendly way. That's the whole Apple strength : taking what you thought were half-baked ideas and turning them into cool applications.

Reply Score: 3

henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

Unlike Windows 95, Quicklook depends on plugins, so you can view any file there is a plugin for. This kind of reminds me of Amiga datatypes a little bit combined with AmigaOS's MultiView application.

Reply Score: 2

tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

I lost interest with this statement. I've got two systems on my desk. OS X 10.4.10 and Debian Sid/Experimental. I spend more time in Linux and have for the past 5 years. When I get the Mac Pro that will balance out.

The reason I spend more time in front of Linux is Tiger runs on my iBook and the workstation with the large screen is a custom built PC running Linux.

The Mac Pro purchase and dual 22 in monitors with XCode 3 will flip my time.

For ease of integration, connectivity, and more there is no way in hell I'd say Ubuntu/Debian ever ran ahead of Tiger, let alone Leopard runs neck and neck with Gibbon.

I build KDE SVN and it's got a lot of polish to go. GNOME 2.20 has made strides.

Neither touch Leopard.

Both I use and enjoy.

The entire article for such a Linux poster spoke nothing about the deep technologies inside Leopard.

``Is Leopard worth the $149 upgrade charge?''

No. It's worth the $129 upgrade.

I'm dealing with Xorg 1.4 Server latest and Intel 950 leaking and after several hours of idle jump from 200 - 300 MB to nearly 1gig of RAM and CPU throttling around 98% on a Dual Core.

Restart X to get the environment working in KDE 3.5.8 is not something I would call, stable.

Hopefully the next Intel driver from Keith Packard addresses this issue seeing as how the prior release behaved itself I'm expecting some regressions from master into 1.4.1.

The mouse on X randomly shooting to upper left, right or lower left, right after select left mouse click or just after selecting a window key/order front to then type keyboard input and soon watching the window become no longer key and the mouse off to a corner is not something I consider polished. This bug has been an issue for several Xorg revisions. It gets "better" with each release, but nothing like this occurs in OS X WindowServer/Quartz interaction.

When Xorg includes the new Mac keyboard I'll hopefully no longer get spurious missing key code events in my kdm.log/gdm.log.

It works minus the "special keys" for the most part.

Caps lock (led illumination broke with the upgrade of Xorg 1.3 to 1.4).

I dig that FOSS has people contributing and by that gets them visibility and future high paying jobs (most of the Xorg folks are sitting on well paying careers leveraging their FOSS backgrounds).

Having worked at NeXT and Apple I can tell you the resources to address such were never large. The teams, by design, are small but the level of expertise is both wide and deep.

Both communities have a lot of talent.

Equal footing on a finished product isn't one of them.

Apple leads in this area and that is what we all expect. When they falter they get stoned in the press. When Linux succeeds people look shocked as they expect them to falter.

I'm glad both are slowly eroding Windows.

Reply Score: 7

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

What would you base the comparison on?

For me, Ubuntu is completely useless; I need Creative Suite, I need the ability (if I choose) to run Microsoft Office. want all my hardware to be supported without concerns.

Comparison based reviews are based on a personal set of circumstances. What might be requirements for me, for another person, completely irrelevant. Take the above situation with me, an other person might not need creative suite, they might not even own an iPod and their hardware is supported by virtue of it being pre-loaded onto the machine.

Like I keep saying, I don't want one to win, I want all to win; I want a marketplace where Linux, *BSD, Solaris, Windows, MacOS X and the likes all work in harmony with each other. Through diversity it will force the different operating systems to play nice with each other.

I want to be able to say, "I run MacOS X" and a variety of other voices pop up, and we can share out data with each other, not worrying about compatibility issues; That is the issue at hand. Hence the reason I keep raising the 'rage against the machine' - there is this idea that for one to succeed, something else must die. All can succeed - and it doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of each other.

Reply Score: 3

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

I've never experienced these kinds of instabilities on Linux. Have had some problems installing or upgrading some distros, but never anything like tyrione's report of actual usage on either of the two machines I have using Debian Testing. Very odd.

The usual problem is with the applications not the OS, and the problem isn't instability, its being able to use them reasonably easily for more than basic use. Compare Base and Filemaker. Or macros in Calc versus MS Office. Or mailmerge in Writer. It can usually be done, but its more work, sometimes a lot more, and often its not at all intuitive.

On the basic OS however, I have been very critical of Mandriva in the past, but just did an installation of One KDE for someone, and it was great. Went in from just one CD flawlessly. Completely stable, reasonably fast, very easy to administer, looks nice. Why, you wondered, do we need Leopard, when we have this? Well, maybe we don't.

Especially not when it will involve replacing one perfectly good Core2 machine with another similarly specified one for no other reason than it has the wrong label on the front....

Reply Score: 4

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

edit - sorry, dupe.

Edited 2007-10-27 07:49

Reply Score: 2

New Finder
by CharAznable on Fri 26th Oct 2007 21:00 UTC
CharAznable
Member since:
2005-07-06

It really throws me off how the new finder looks like iTunes....

Reply Score: 2

I should try OSX
by hussam on Fri 26th Oct 2007 21:48 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

As a person who have only been using Linux (gnome) for years now, I must say I do have to try OSX sometime.

Reply Score: 2

agree
by SK8T on Fri 26th Oct 2007 22:08 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

I totaly agree,
that's how a OS should be.

Reply Score: 2

Pthreads
by Coldfirex on Sat 27th Oct 2007 00:47 UTC
Coldfirex
Member since:
2005-12-04

I wonder if this version will scale a bit better when it comes to server software?

Reply Score: 2

First impressions...
by apoclypse on Sat 27th Oct 2007 00:47 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

So I have installed Leopard and I haven't gotten into using timemachine yet, I've been testing my apps to make sure they work. My firt impression of the UI is that the simplicity that they have built in older versions has been completely thrown out of the window. There seems to be a lot of stuff going on on at the same time, I dare say a bit too much. I liked the more simple less cluttered look of tiger. At this point my MBP is is indexing, and its good thing I realized that or I would complain about the speed and low framerate of the UI.

I don't mind the 3d dock, its nice for what it is, though I think I like the older one better. I think it was clearer to see what was open and to see launchers.

I do like it so far though.

Reply Score: 3

Pardon?
by segedunum on Sat 27th Oct 2007 11:15 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

OS X 10.5 Leopard is the best operating system released by Apple so far and runs neck and neck with Ubuntu’s Gutsy Gibbon as my favorite operating systems to use.

I have absolutely no idea why people continue to think Ubuntu is anything special. There's certainly nothing anywhere near the features that there are in Leopard.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Pardon?
by apoclypse on Sun 28th Oct 2007 22:03 UTC in reply to "Pardon?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

why rain on the man's parade. He didn't say it he thought everyone should be using Ubuntu and that it was the best. he said that he liked Ubuntu and thought that OSX compared favorably to it. I happen to be a Linux user and an Ubuntu user at that and when it comes to speed ubuntu still kicks OSX's ass all over the place on SLOWER hardware. i know because I happen to have an MBP with OSX 10.5 running right now and it can still be sluggish though its a noticeably faster than with tiger. Some people happen to like Ubuntu and the fact that it has a growing userbase and is gaining popularity might actually count for something, but when people want to troll, they could give a rats ass about what's in front of their face. I'm not saying Ubuntu is better than OSX, but considering that almost all the work is done by volunteers and the community, the fact that it can come close is an amazing achievement, imo. The fact that not even a year ago compiz was nothing more than a pet project and can now hold its own against the big boys, is an achievement. What the OSS community lacks is polish, namely because polish is hard and boring, and the OSS community's motto is scratch your own itch. Ubuntu works on far more hardware than OSX does and that is a fact, it even works on more hardware than windows does out of the box, and most of this work was done through community contributions.

Reply Score: 2

Re: Functionality
by mind!dagger on Sat 27th Oct 2007 13:45 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

I am on a private list server of Mac users and they `ARE` having problems with Leopard. Not with the operating system or its feature set but with set up. Most non-tech people, which is 95 percent of the computer using population, have no idea how to perform a simple back up. Instead of being a BOFH I simply help by giving them advice.

I believe Apple's back up program will help visual and non technical people with things like Time Machine and Spaces.

I still make plenty of extra cash helping Windows users out and managing the remaining Windows servers at work. Life goes on even after a new OS arrives.

Edited 2007-10-27 13:46

Reply Score: 1

No more bootcamp
by Romas on Sat 27th Oct 2007 17:29 UTC
Romas
Member since:
2005-07-15

So it looks like bootcamp became "Leopard only". No more driver updates? You greedy bastards!

Reply Score: 1

java 6 bummer
by ahmetaa on Sat 27th Oct 2007 18:11 UTC
ahmetaa
Member since:
2005-07-06

leopard doea not include java 6.. that is a major screw up from apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE: java 6 bummer
by Anim8me2 on Sat 27th Oct 2007 20:44 UTC in reply to "java 6 bummer"
Anim8me2 Member since:
2006-02-10

Read some of the other article threads here.
No OS includes java6

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: java 6 bummer
by _mikk on Sun 28th Oct 2007 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE: java 6 bummer"
_mikk Member since:
2005-10-19

Agree. On Windows and Linux you are in control of what JVM (the latest one, not 6 month old at best) goes into your machine.

Reply Score: 1

Leopard
by REM2000 on Sat 27th Oct 2007 18:15 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

So far ive been very impressed after a days usage. I think the network browsing and searching is fantastic, it was always a bugbear to have finder hang for a couple of mins waiting for the network drives to disconnect. Access through finder is just so easy now.

Love time machine excellent idea, glad it can share space with exisiting files, as i was a little worried i might have to reformat my external drive in a special time machine accessible format only.

Leopard seems a little faster on my macbook and about the same on my powerbook (1.67GHZ, 1GB RAM).

Mail, Calendar and Address book seemed to have grown up now and i can now be used to help me organise in a much better way (notes and reminders in mail, etc..)

The consistent look across all apps is very welcome.

Overall well worth the price for upgrade and looking forward to finding the other small things which bring a smile to my face and help me use my computer better.

Reply Score: 3

v OSX
by WyldStylist on Sat 27th Oct 2007 19:36 UTC
Wow Factor
by ghostdawg on Sat 27th Oct 2007 22:35 UTC
ghostdawg
Member since:
2005-12-31

For me, coming from a Windows and then mainly the linux world...after buying a mini mac in '05 with Panther installed, it did not wow me as it does some. Of course, OS X is a great OS and way better than windows, but it can learn from linux and linux can learn from it.

We have to remember, that Linux is mostly created by non profit/one programmer setup. It doesn't have billions of dollars behind it.

Reply Score: 1

My leopard experience
by sappyvcv on Sat 27th Oct 2007 23:21 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you can call it that...

I put the DVD in and reboot. It sits there like its loading for a while at the grey screen... with the load indicator. Then the blue screen for a few seconds. Then the screen goes black with some random artifacts.

Really awesome. I'm impressed Apple! $1500 + $129 is totally worth it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: My leopard experience
by Kroc on Sun 28th Oct 2007 06:47 UTC in reply to "My leopard experience"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Have you run a Disk Verify recently and possibly hardware test?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: My leopard experience
by spook on Sun 28th Oct 2007 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE: My leopard experience"
spook Member since:
2006-01-09

BSOD have being put down to upgrading on a Mac that has APE installed

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My leopard experience
by sappyvcv on Sun 28th Oct 2007 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: My leopard experience"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I went to boot tiger and forgot to take out the leopard DVD. This time it actually started up and I was able to install it. Quite odd, as I had tried it at least 10 times last night.

Now the real test begins. I will be taking it to work with me and using it to help me work (Software Engineer).

Edited 2007-10-28 13:37

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: My leopard experience
by Kroc on Sun 28th Oct 2007 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My leopard experience"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Good luck with that, hope it works out ;)

Reply Score: 2

Best easter egg ever
by binarycrusader on Sun 28th Oct 2007 01:06 UTC
binarycrusader
Member since:
2005-07-06

Best easter egg ever, when using coverflow to browse network computers, Windows machines show up like this:

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/%7Eperekdr/leopard_windows_easter_eg...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Best easter egg ever
by akeru on Mon 29th Oct 2007 00:05 UTC in reply to "Best easter egg ever"
akeru Member since:
2007-06-24

Sometimes if you gloat too much, you get burned.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Best easter egg ever
by binarycrusader on Mon 29th Oct 2007 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Best easter egg ever"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but in this case, Apple wasn't the case; a known problematic toolkit that modifies the operating system in ways that are not approved by Apple was.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Best easter egg ever
by akeru on Mon 29th Oct 2007 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Best easter egg ever"
akeru Member since:
2007-06-24

Isn't that the case of the general majority of Windows 2000/XP BSODs as well? Not trying to seem like a fanboy or anything, because I love operating systems in general. I just think the whole Steve Jobs attacking Microsoft is getting pretty childish.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Best easter egg ever
by binarycrusader on Mon 29th Oct 2007 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Best easter egg ever"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Isn't that the case of the general majority of Windows 2000/XP BSODs as well? Not trying to seem like a fanboy or anything, because I love operating systems in general. I just think the whole Steve Jobs attacking Microsoft is getting pretty childish.


There's a major difference. APE is actually modifying components of the operating itself to basically "hack" applications into the memory space of another.

Windows drivers, etc. that caused BSODs and so forth can often do so using the official API provided to them and even when they're doing everything "correctly."

Windows Vista is significantly better about this I will readily agree.

For the record, I don't own a Mac (yet) myself; the last Apple computer I owned was an Apple //C+.

I spend most of my time running Solaris.

Reply Score: 2

hah
by ahmetaa on Sun 28th Oct 2007 03:58 UTC
ahmetaa
Member since:
2005-07-06

dude, there is no Java 6 for Mac OsX.. there was a beta available, but not anymore

Reply Score: 1

My experiences with leopard updates
by DeKoning on Sun 28th Oct 2007 11:26 UTC
DeKoning
Member since:
2006-01-21

iMac intel core Duo: update without a glitch. iMac appears to be more stable.

Powerbook 15": clean install, procedure as advertised. Powerbook feels faster, interface is less sticky.

Powerbook 17": upgrade install. Leopard refused to upgrade. Ran a hardware check (as advised) and harddisk appeared to be in bad shap (after almost 5 years of intensive use). Mac OS X repairset couldn't help me here, but Diskwarrior could and fixed the problem. Time to get the data off and replace this machine.

Now on with the rest of the fleet: G5's and some intel portables.

Reply Score: 1